I was somewhat surprised to see my own comments… ahem… quoted in the story.

Herman May of Garland implored Perry to veto the measure.

“As a vehicular cyclist with close to twenty years of daily experience dealing with traffic in the Dallas area, I can assure you additional legislation is not the answer to this solution …,” May wrote.

“At its core, the primary result of this proposed legislation will be to convey a false sense of security to uneducated cyclists.”

The misquote gives the impression of incoherence. What I actually said was,

…I can assure you additional legislation is not the answer to this solution in search of a problem.

Upon further consideration, it would have been more succinct to have stated, “I can assure you additional legislation is not the answer to this non-issue.” Certainly, doing so would have left little room for ambiguity and butchering by shoddy journalists.

Equally interesting is the fact that the correspondent then proceeds to basically paraphrase other arguments from my correspondence with the governor and pass them off as his own. Few members of either side of the argument were highlighting §545.053, wherein it states that,

An operator passing another vehicle shall pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe distance; and may not move back to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the passed vehicle.

As I have stated from the outset of this debate, the only “safe passing” statute required is to flesh out the definition of what constitutes “a safe distance” and apply it to all vehicle classes. Demanding special consideration of cyclists as particularly “vulnerable” and lumping us with various, facultative pedestrian classes does little to protect our travel on the roadway. The statute as proposed would have been nearly unenforceable and would have served only to diminish the standing of lawful, competent vehicular cyclists as a recognized operator class.

See the notice below for the agenda and other information.

——————————————————————————–

SENATE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

COMMITTEE:   Transportation & Homeland Security

TIME & DATE:  10:00 AM, Thursday, August 20, 2009

PLACE:            NCTCOG offices, Arlington, Texas

CHAIR:            Senator John Carona

The Senate Committee on Transportation and Homeland Security will convene in Arlington, Texas, at the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) offices on August 20, 2009.  The NCTCOG building is located at 616 Six Flags Drive, Arlington, Texas, 76011, and the Committee will meet in the Transportation Council Room on the first floor. The Committee will receive invited testimony from entities including:

• - The Governor’s Office of Homeland Security
• - The Governor’s Division of Emergency Management
• - The Texas Adjutant General’s Department
• - The Texas Department of Public Safety
• - The Texas Department of State Health Services
• - The Texas Department of Transportation
• - The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI)

Topics to be discussed may include, but are not limited to, border security, traffic safety, the H1N1 virus, the TxDOT management audit, HOV lanes, stimulus funding, high speed rail, transportation finances, the TTI Mobility Report, and updates on agency activities.

The Committee will also receive public testimony.  If you would like to testify, please limit oral remarks to 3 minutes.  If you would like to submit written testimony, please submit 15 copies, with your name on each copy, to the Committee Staff at the hearing.

Bicyclists were stunned at the turn of events..[sic] And I think they have a legitimate beef.

The reference to being stunned is an unattributed quote from a post to the TBC website in the hours following the veto. How anyone can construe my comments on SB-488 as substantiation of the irrational cries of foul from the supporters of this legislation is beyond my understanding. Perhaps the DMN and its editor are simply employing an unethical technique for garnering hits. My criticism of this superfluous legislation is unquestioned.

Some other jewels from this post…

I used to pedal my bike to the DART train station, lock it up and commute via rail.

No information as to why he stopped doing this. To speculate would be irresponsible. Nevertheless, the demeanor of the author leave little question.

I think motorists are bullies and react out of proportion to the perceived inconvenience.

This is among the most irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims made by timid, inexperienced cyclists. The majority of motorists are not bullies, nor do they overreact to the situation. I can count on one hand the number of times in any given month when I experience harassment of any type by motorists. When one considers the fact that the author no longer commutes by bicycle, it boggles the mind that he can offer such a definitive statement on the motives of those with whom he no longer has any interaction.

A follow-up post was published this morning, wherein the author – remember no longer a bicycle commuter – encourages readers to visit the Texas Bicycle Coalition website and sign their petition of whiners threatening Governor Perry that he will be remembered for his decision come the next election. Of course, one is immediately prompted to ask how many of these signatories actually voted in the last state election. History suggests fewer than half.

This is yet another example of an uneducated, novice cyclist penning a treatise on a subject for which he has little experience. In addition to spreading FUD and propaganda, he has incorrectly referenced my content as an argument in favor of “Safe Passing” legislation.

Of the four pieces of legislation the DMN chose to critique, they gave the least print space to SB488.

Likewise, we question his veto of the bicyclist protection bill. Perry said this legislation would have duplicated existing state law.

In both instances, the bills would have added teeth to existing legislation.

The choice of words selected by the editorial staff if interesting – “bicycle protection bill.” Of course, that is precisely what it was, but the proponents went to great length to always refer to it as the “vulnerable road user bill.” As discussed elsewhere, this proposed legislation was intentionally broadened to include a whole host of, primarily, pedestrian classes. Pedestrians are not design road users and, as the governor correctly noted, “a pedestrian is required to yield the right of way to a motor vehicle, unless he or she is at an intersection or crosswalk.”

Including pedestrians was a very big flaw in the wording of the legislation. Attempting to suggest parity between legitimate, recognized vehicles (e.g. cyclists, motorcyclists, operators of farm implements and equestrians) with pedestrians is disingenuous. Legitimate, recognized road users have codified guidelines by which they are required to operate. Under §541.001 of the Transportation Code, a pedestrian is defined as a “person”, while bicycles, motorcycles and farm implements are all defined as “vehicles” under §541.201. The attempt to create an amalgam of these two classes to achieve a specific agenda creates the potential for a loss of status by one or both groups.

In the case of SB488 the legislation would not have “added teeth to existing legislation.” It would reduced our legitimacy and potentially led to more discrimination and disrespect.

Is it too hot to ride a bike in Dallas?

No, not really. When one considers the average bicycle commute is five to seven miles, the relatively short duration of a trip at these distances – even at the height of summer heat – is not a terribly uncomfortable prospect. The key to success is proper dress and hydration. I do it on a daily basis during an average one-way trip distance of 30km. For most, this would be a potentially daunting prospect. Nevertheless, commitment and experience make it mostly pleasant and uneventful.

Many novice transportation cyclists disparage the use of cycling attire as being elitist. Assigning such derogatory terms as “lycra” and “spandex” to modern performance fabrics, some criticize the donning of clothing intended to shield skin, wick perspiration and prevent chafing as being uninviting. Of course, the use of these synthetics is not required. Smart wool is another good choice. If the detractors stick with bicycle commuting, in a few years they too will come to realize the benefits of wearing appropriate clothing – especially for long distance commutes.

Hydration is of paramount importance. The average person can lose up to two liters of water per hour during intense exercise. Whether one cycles vigorously or not, simply being out in the summer sun in Texas can be analogous to an intense workout. The consumption of at least 250mL/15 minutes of riding is a minimum maintenance volume requirement. A supplemental containing electrolytes is advisable, but can be replenished at the end of the trip as well.

Feedback

As one might imagine, the responses posted to the Transportation ‘blog run the gamut from the sublime to the ridiculous. Most of the respondents ranged far afield from the question at hand and whined about the lack of bike lanes as being an impediment toward serious consideration of bicycle commuting. As experienced vehicular cyclists know, this is specious and little more than a convenient excuse. Every lane is a bike lane when occupied by a competent, experienced cyclist.

Of course, there were the ever present trolls as well. Those who are more that willing to share their thinly veiled, paternalistic derision of cyclists on the roadway. They feign altruistic concern by employing such platitudes as concern for the cyclist’s safety. In reality, their only care is removal from their path of any potential impediment to progress at (or above) the posted speed limit.

Spurious emissions

In addition to the community query, the author adding some unrelated commentary concerning the recently highlighted “Bike Fort Worth” plan. He began by citing Streetsblog Capitol Hill and its profile of today’s BFOC interview with Don Koski, a senior planner with Fort Worth. The Streetsblog piece focused primarily on the proposed “[h]undreds of miles of new bike lanes, ‘road diets’ and a proposed streetcar system.” Even BFOC was pushing the bike lane meme by lauding the “400+ miles of bike lanes, bus only lanes, streetcars, and ‘road diets’ … being planned throughout the city.” What Koski actually says, or rather doesn’t, is of more interest.

In response to the question, “Since the majority of residents are in cars, is there a concern that implementing bicycle infrastructure at the cost of losing lanes and/or parking will diminish the ability for people to gain access to these areas?”; he responds:

There often are trade-offs when right-of-way space is limited. We are addressing the decision-making process dealing with these concerns in the Bike Fort Worth plan. With new construction, it is relatively easy to make the provisions for all of the likely users of the street as long as it is planned for from the beginning. The most difficulty is when trying to retrofit bicycle facilities into existing streets. On streets in downtown and in other areas where traffic speeds and volumes are relatively low, dedicated cycling space isn’t a high priority as most cyclists feel comfortable sharing the travel lanes in that environment. Elsewhere, in some cases, we may need to identify a parallel street as the preferred cycling route, or we may need to just sign the street as a bike route and install shared lane marking symbols. However, there are a number of streets that are oversized for the level of vehicular traffic that they experience today or are likely to have in the future. In some of those cases, a “road diet” may be possible that could provide dedicated space for cyclists. We look at these on a case-by-case basis to determine how best to accommodate cyclists, based on the criteria established in the plan. Another related challenge is the trade-off between space for cyclists and space for pedestrians, especially along some of the busy arterial streets that pass through Fort Worth’s urban villages.

Note the phrase bike lane does not appear even once. It could be argued that reference to potential segregated facilities is implied in the phrase, “a ‘road diet’ may be possible that could provide dedicated space for cyclists.” That is not necessarily the case, however. This “dedicated space” could also take the form of wide outside lanes to allow for sharing or various traffic calming measures to slow the motorists to a more comfortable speed for novice cyclists.

It is obvious that Koski is approaching the Bike Fort Worth plan with more pragmatism and reason than the shrill voices of the facilities hounds are promoting. Of course, all of this is smoke and mirrors until the funding is acquired and the proposals begin to see the light of day. Many have been the bicycle transportation projects which have met with approval by city councils only to be scaled back or endlessly delayed due to funding issues and public outcry at the required sacrifices.

Only time will tell, but I am hopeful reason and common sense will prevail. Koski’s comments provide some solace in that regard. We shall see.

Recognizing the success of a discount movie promotion they negotiated at a neighborhood theater in April, the group has extended their rewards program to businesses through out the Oak Cliff arts district. Individuals and families who ride their bicycle(s) to area businesses are eligible to discounts ranging from 10% to 50%. There are even a few freebies thrown in for good measure. It is this sort of imaginative, grassroots effort which just may revitalize the local living economies of decades past and encourage physical activity.

The media coverage has been mixed. An article appearing in the Dallas Morning News was, IMO, too superficial and glossed over the potential for similar initiatives in other parts of the Metroplex. Even worse was a piece airing on the local CBS affiliate, KTVT. Instead of focusing on the community and health benefits, their angle was to couch the program as a means to weather the economic downturn (text|video). In other words, a belt-tightening scheme, rather than a health incentive and community spirit endeavor. Even so, publicizing programs like this can only have a beneficial effect for utility cycling.

BFOC is blazing a new trail with this idea. Other North Texas advocacy groups should take heed and follow suit. Friends of the Katy Trail could solicit participation from Knox Street, Uptown and Victory Park businesses; BikeDFW, Greater Dallas Bicyclists and other regional groups could work with community centers and neighborhood groups. Expanding programs like this could encourage families to think about bicycles as an alternate mode of transportation and an activity families can do together. Fostering utility cycling at the family level may translate to wider adoption of vehicular cycling principles.

Van Steenburg begins his petulance with a glaring misrepresentation

Fort Worth has beaten Dallas to the punch again.

Dallas has had a functioning Bike Plan for over twenty years. With over 600 lane-miles of designated, on-street bike routes, the city is far ahead of Fort Worth in both planning and implementation.

Most, if not all, of the information upon which Van Steenburg bases his commentary originates from articles appearing in the Fort Worth Press. On 13 May, Fort Worth Weekly posted a 1400 word analysis of the “Bike Fort Worth” plan.  A little under two weeks later, the Fort Worth Business Press published a more modest 650 essay on the plan. Given that Fort Worth has stated they will not publicly release details of the plan until later this summer at the earliest, these media reports can be the only source for his information.

[Fort Worth is] starting on a six-year mission to become an official ‘Bicycle Friendly Community.’

Interesting choice of words. The term “Bicycle Friendly Community” refers to an award presented by the League of American Bicyclists to basically reward communities for the installation of bike lanes. There has been legitimate criticism of this program primarily due to its emphasis upon facilities at the expense of education and, more importantly, safety. While they do mention the Fort Worth plan as being “bike-friendly”, nowhere do either publication refer to this LAB program.

It’s time for Dallas to wake up and smell the carbon monoxide.

I guess Van Steenburg missed that day in chemistry. Carbon monoxide is an odorless and colorless gas.

The “Bike Fort Worth” plan would triple the amount of bicycle transportation, cut down on the number of bicycle-related accidents by a quarter, and earn the Bicycle Friendly Community designation from the League of American Bicyclists.

This information appears nowhere in either of the Fort Worth publications. The article in Fort Worth Weekly does mention that the “Bike Fort Worth” plan will result in triple the mileage of bike trails. Of course, it also mentions that bike routes would increase six-fold – even so remaining at less than half that of Dallas – and bike lanes would swell 60x. Finally, those are all facilities predictions. No mention is made of the predicted increase in transportation share.

The problem is that cyclists don’t feel safe [with Dallas'] approach [of having cyclists share the streets with motor vehicles], and drivers never accept bikes on “their” roads.

Interesting. That approach has served me well for nearly twenty years. I only encounter occasional instances of non-acceptance. Use of anecdotal hyperbole does little to strengthen Van Steenburg’s argument. It does serve to make him look foolish. In truth, only novice and inexperienced cyclists do not feel safe when operating as a vehicle, due largely to unenlightened exaggerations like these.

Van Steenburg then proceeds to counsel the mayor of Dallas by suggesting he appoint a committee to spearhead a renewal of the Dallas Bike Plan. Three individuals of questionable merit are submitted for consideration. To my knowledge, none are qualified.

Craig Miller is identified as a local morning radio host who apparently lectures both cyclists and motorists on proper operation on the roadways. Offering advice and having real knowledge of the issue involved are two entirely disparate subjects. Pay a visit to the website of his show and one is regaled of his qualification for “hot sports opinions”. It is not opinions which are needed – there are more than enough of those to go around; we need experience and expertise.

Next Van Steenburg offers David Feherty as a prospective member. The only qualification Feherty brings is ineptitude as a bicycle commuter. Again, Van Steenburg’s facts are muddled in his exuberance. Feherty was not “hit while riding around White Rock Lake in 2008.” He was run off the road while riding in the gutter on Park Lane, between Greenville and US75. The trouble is, he appeared on the KERA program THINK (02 October 2008) and as much as admitted he was at faul, because he was riding too far to the right in the mistaken belief he had to share a sub-standard width lane. Obviously, he is not qualified to lead such a committee.

To end the nominations, Van Steenburg trots out George W. Bush. One need look no further than the standing of our country in the eyes of the world and the state of our economy to see this is an irresponsible proposal. Though he may have acquired an enthusiasm for off-road cycling during the past decade, he has no expertise or experience with transportation cycling issues. One can only imagine the damage Bush would do to cycling in North Texas.

Besides, if Fort Worth can do it, why can’t Dallas?

Not only does this interrogative conclude his commentary, it does an excellent job of summarizing his whole argument. The “Bike Fort Worth” plan is just that. It is unfunded, unproven and currently unapproved. There is no guarantee any of it will either see the light of day, much less result in the overly optimistic increases in bicycle ride share proposed. Most importantly, Dallas has already done it. Many of us continue to prove it every day! Visitors compliment both the city and its drivers.